(RNS) — Four years after Indiana adopted its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prompting boycotts, bad press and an eventual amendment to avoid approving anti-LGBT discrimination, the state briefly returned last month to the debate when a tax preparer in rural Russiaville, Nancy Fivecoate, declined on religious grounds to prepare a return for a same-sex married couple.

Samantha Brazzel, whose wife, Bailey’s, returns had been prepared by Fivecoate before the couple was married, told The Washington Post that the couple left Carter Tax Service feeling “shocked, upset, and kind of hurt.” They shared their ordeal in a local Facebook group before it was picked up by local media.

Fivecoate told an NBC affiliate, “I am a Christian and I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.” She added, “I was very respectful to them. I told them where I thought she might be able to get her taxes prepared.”

But the story made barely a ripple in the national culture war for one happy reason: No serious religious freedom advocate stepped forward to defend Fivecoate. Conservative legal-defense groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Becket Fund, which often rush to represent people with religious liberty claims, have said nothing about this story.

Is it too much to hope that the kerfuffle is a sign of a promising consensus against giving credence to baseless, purely discriminatory claims?

To answer that, we need first to agree that Fivecoate’s misguided insistence that her religious beliefs relieved her from having to assist Samantha and Bailey Brazzel almost certainly stems from the righteous ballyhoo on both sides after then Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed the RFRA in 2015. The tax preparer likely felt further justified by Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court case decided last summer giving Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for two men.

Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop on June 4, 2018, in Lakewood, Colo. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his religious beliefs did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Progressive opponents said then that carve-outs for wedding vendors and other kinds of businesses amount to a license to discriminate. That’s not as likely as what has happened in Indiana: that some conservative Christians, like Fivecoate, may now be primed to deny business services by default.

That’s not only a shame, it undermines the argument of people with potentially more legitimate claims — caterers, bakers, printers and other creatives whose artistic expression would be put in direct service of a ritual they don’t support.

It’s true that the line is not always clear between legitimate religious conscience claims and discrimination (that’s why religious freedom cases go all the way to the Supreme Court). But Fivecoate has no legitimate religious liberty defense. Filing a tax form is a public accommodation. If she has such strong beliefs about the sinfulness of unions outside of heterosexual marriage, Fivecoate would have to show a history of declining her services to all manner of what she would consider sexual sinners, which she makes no pretense to have done.

Having won their case in Washington, conservative leaders should perhaps do more to help people distinguish those situations. But it’s a start for them to show that there is indeed a principle at play in these cases and not a blanket defense of anti-gay animus. It’s a credit to traditionalist religious liberty advocates that there is a limit to their support.

Let us equally commend the Brazzels, who were clearly wronged in this episode. Bailey and Samantha reacted with shock and sadness, as anyone would. They expressed their hurt in a public forum. They raised awareness. And then they moved on, finding someone else to prepare their tax return.

The couple may be simply facing up to the fact that Indiana has no state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Where such laws do exist, plaintiffs and state civil rights commissions have sought punitive actions against business owners who declined service to LGBT customers.

But their response is a far cry from some other LGBT litigants, who have alleged that being on the receiving end of a service denial is a traumatizing assault on their dignity as a person, for which the only redress is to financially ruin a small-business owner. “We don’t wish any harm to her or her business, nor do we think she’s terrible,” said Samantha of Fivecoate.

A free society will continue to navigate tensions between LGBT people’s rights and those of religious traditionalists, so each may live in accordance with their beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender identity.

The latest Indiana episode was not a big deal because the tax preparer’s religious freedom was not infringed upon and because the wronged couple was gracious. And that’s something we can be thankful for April 15 and every day.

About the author

Jacob Lupfer

A contributing editor at RNS, Jacob Lupfer is a writer and consultant in Baltimore. His website is www.jacoblupfer.com. Follow him on Twitter at @jlupf. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.

448 Comments

“justified by Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court case decided last summer giving Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for two men.”

Which it totally didn’t. But the Conservative Christian crowd wanted to pretend it did. In fact Justice Kennedy was downright hostile to the “religious freedom” claims beyond their mere existence. In fact the entire decision came down to merely criticizing the alleged attitude of the State Human Rights Commission rather than any sort of argument on the merits of Jack Phillips’s claim.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips’ rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission’s decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission’s lack of religious neutrality.

“That’s not only a shame, it undermines the argument of people with potentially more legitimate claims — caterers, bakers, printers and other creatives whose artistic expression would be put in direct service of a ritual they don’t support”

Its a BS argument from the get-go. There is no argument for a legitimate claim here at all, or ever. It is merely an excuse for typical discrimination on the basis of the class of people involved. Using religious belief as a pretext to claim the act is beyond criticism. Expecting the 1st Amendment to be privilege to break laws and attack people in the name of their faith.

“Having won their case in Washington, conservative leaders should perhaps do more to help people distinguish those situations.”

Why would they do that? The entire point here is to exert an undue privilege to attack people under the guise of Christian belief. The more expansive the ability to attack the better. It is not about freedom of religion or “artistic expression” or “supporting rituals”.

This is nothing more than a plan for segregation of gays.

“A free society will continue to navigate tensions between LGBT people’s rights and those of religious traditionalists, so each may live in accordance with their beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender identity.”

A free society is one which does not permit religious belief to be used as an excuse to attack people with impunity under the law. Conservative Christians have no regard for religious freedom. All they want is special privilege over others.

“Let us equally commend the Brazzels, who were clearly wronged in this episode…”

“But their response is a far cry from some other LGBT litigants, who have alleged that being on the receiving end of a service denial is a traumatizing assault on their dignity as a person, for which the only redress is to financially ruin a small-business owner. “

Why, because they took the abuse and didn’t put up a fuss or seek legal recourse whereas other ‘uppity’ gays went to court to fight for their right? Boy, I’m ticked off at you Lupfer and all I can do is fume!

Since the Masterpiece Cakeshop case concluded noting the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had taken careful aim and emptied its six-shot adjudicative revolver into its own kneecaps, leaving the First Amendment issues unresolved but the State of Colorado on crutches, the case does not speak to this case at all.

Nor is the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act relevant to this set of circumstances.

Tax preparation, like legal work, like medical care, is a professional service which requires close cooperation with the client or patient.

If in the professional’s opinion that service cannot be rendered consistent with professional duty, no excuse is required to refuse service.

If at some point these individuals require representation before the IRS and/or Tax Court, they need someone who can provide that advocacy without reservations or qualms.

Funny that you should drag in medical care… as history has shown that when medical care providers refuse to provide such services, people have literally died as the result (e.g. Tyra Hunter). Anti-LGBT discrimination kills.

Your argument could equally apply to those racists or anti-semites who would turn away other classes of human beings… but we no longer allow such ugly behavior to be excused under the rubric of “freedom”. We know that hate is the real cause.

“The trial was riddled with unlikely testimony and missing evidence: E.M.T. Adrian Williams testified he assumed Ms. Hunter was a man as he approached her and rendered aid, failing to notice that she had breasts, make-up, women’s clothing, a woman’s hairstyle, and white nail polish. One subpoenaed D.C. General employee disappeared to Africa until late December. Important patient records were physically altered. Blood gas results and x-ray films were all lost.”

In short, it was business as usual in DC and DC General Hospital, whose reputation is such that Federal employees in DC routinely ask to be taken to ANY OTHER HOSPITAL.

So, let’s get back to the discussion and cut the emotional appeals, including referencing non-existent in this situation “racists or anti-semites who would turn away other classes of human beings”.

We do in fact allow professionals to choose their clients and patients, Kay.

I don’t know what church the tax preparer goes to, but a parallel principle in the Catholic Church distinguishes between public and private sinners. Thus a public adulterer, who openly lives with someone they are not married to, should be refused Communion. while a sneaking cheater should not. The reason is the first is a public scandal, and giving Communion implies condoning adultery, making adultery appear trivial to others.

I think this is part of the answer to the author’s comment about why she doesn’t refuse service to other customers who are committing other types of sexual sins. Gay couples are immediately visible sinners from a traditionally religious point of view, while a cheating spouse is not. The tax preparer is not required to hire a detective to check out all of her clients. She is only responsible for what she knows.

But tax preparation is THE BUSINESS!! It’s NOT “a public accommodation” any more than he cake shop is. They are BOTH businesses that are “OPEN TO THE PUBLIC”. The numbskull author of this piece is talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to use the EXACT SAME rationale to justify the tax preparer HAVING to do her job as he’s using to justify the baker NOT having to do his.
I hope, someday, “Christians” learn how logic and reason work instead of all the mental gymnastics into word salad they currently try to pass off as “an intelligent, well-reasoned, logical justification” for their bigoted stupidity.

Regardless of the Masterpiece case or any similar case for that matter, as a private business owner, let me decide how I should run my business, you decide to boycott or not. Let the people decide, not unelected officials who have no basis to do so in the first place as marriage is not a Constitutional issue and is not a “right”.

More importantly gays are a group which he can specifically discriminate against in open commerce thanks to the laws on the books. They are an identifiable class who are under a measure of legal segregation in IN.

This has nothing to do with “sin”. This has to do with bigotry. Using religion as an excuse to be malicious to others without fear of social consequences. He shouldn’t be treating anybody in such a fashion, regardless of what one thinks of their individual “sins”.

That is was what always people said to support segregation. It doesn’t wash.

The business is not entirely private. It is open to the public, it is open commerce. If you are open to the public, you have a duty to serve the public. You don’t get to pick your customers based on the class of people they are

You are correct to an extent. To be blantantly discriminatory based on orientation is one thing. I don’t agree with that business practice (I’m just saying, let individuals, not government, decide that outcome). But to say that I don’t agree with a couple because I do not agree with marriage redefinition is not the same.

No you are dead wrong here. This is nothing more than a new iteration of segregation.

You even just recycled the same arguments used in support of it verbatim from 50 years ago.

This is not about sin, or approval of for marriage or Christian belief. None of that is the business of a purveyor of goods and services in open commerce. Just because the nature of the prejudice has changed, the immoral nature of the discriminatory conduct has not.

It is about people taking an opportunity to discriminate without legal consequences.

Spuddie, buddy, you are living in the past. We do not live in a segregated, racist society anymore. I have studied cases like this now for the past 10 years or so. In nearly all of these cases, it’s not the fact that the business owner is deciding to be blatantly discriminatory due to ones orientation. Look it up. In each case the business owner did in fact service said individuals. It wasn’t until the notion of the said customer of business came to the business owner with the directive to have a service done or product made for a very specific purpose–a same sex wedding–where the business owner objected and refused service. Marriage has a very specific meaning to many people and the majority of Americans still agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what a few individuals with robes try to tell us is correct. There is nothing “immoral” about refusing to be forced to bake a cake, rent out grounds for a ceremony, or not agree with filing a same sex couple’s tax return. On the contrary, it would be immoral for those owners to be forced by their government to go against ones conscience.

No, you are not only living in the past, you are repeating the same crap people used decades ago to support the same action. Denying people goods and services from open commerce on the basis of legally sanctioned bigotry.

You need to study harder because in all of these cases there was no recognized religious expression in the discriminatory conduct. The author got Masterpiece entirely wrong.

Changing the subject of prejudice doesn’t change the nature of the act. No vendor of goods and services has any business to delve into the personal lives of their customers.

You are so full of crap. Nobody is “forced” to treat all customers alike with the most basic level of professional courtesy. It is their profession. If they weren’t willing to serve the entire public and all classes of customers, they should not do business in the open. There are various ways to do business that would not bring the obligation to serve the entire public.

There are obviously people like yourself who are so bigoted and uncivil that they feel a need to attack people for their own amusement. Ones who are so deranged they cannot follow the most basic rules of society when it comes to dealing with others.

They can get bent. They are immoral whiny babies looking for excuses to act badly and are too spineless to face the consequences if their actions.

You are nothing more than a segregationist with a new class of victims.

Wow. You have made an incredible leap with this statement. So, I should be forced to do something against my will, against what I believe to be morally correct and I’m a bigot for having said conscience?? You libs never cease to amaze me. So if anyone is were allowed to have a conscience, it should only be approved by you, the State or Spuddie?

You want legal permission to deny access of a class of people to goods, services and government agencies on the basis of personal bigotry. That’s segregation.

You even recycled the same exact arguments for segregation.

Your sole argument is that your brand of bigotry is different from racism. Well that means squat. You still seek the same goals as racists back then did. To treat a class of people as social inferiors and exclude them from participation in society in your presence.

You are just not used to people calling out your canned nonsense. If you feel offended by such candor, tough luck.

“Says the white straight guy”. Marriage IS A BASIC human right, which had been denied us until 2015. We know how much radical Catholic and Evangelical Christians hate us, and personally, I don’t care. Hate we queer folk all you want, you hypocritical bigots and irredemptive sinners. But when you start trying to turn your hate into public policy, then I have a problem. Also, if you don’t want LGBTQ customers, in order to exercise your RFRA rights to hate us and deny us goods and services, you should be required to list on your website and front door all the types of people, including we queers, that you refuse to serve. Let EVERYONE know who you really are. You can’t hide behind your bigotry AND do business with straight folk who wouldn’t do business with you if they knew of your hatefulness. Religious bigots and segregationists don’t get to have their piece of cake and eat it, too.

Marriage is a basic human right? Really? Show me where in the Constitution where this is stated. As a Christian and as a person who has both gay relatives and a couple gay people that even attend my church I can tell you that we don’t hate anyone. I know you’re emotional about this issue. I get it. But marriage is sacred to many people and many people do not agree with it being redefined. That’s all.

“Marriage redefination” is code switch language. We aren’t redefinng marriage. We just want it to apply to us in American civil law as it does for all Americans. I know you’re an anti-LGBTQ troll; you’re here for argument and to hurt people, and I won’t play your silly little games, troll.

I’m here to hurt people?? Hardly. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Or are you just interested in opinions you agree with? Gays already have equal protection under the law. That is, regardless of your orientation, any man can marry a woman and vice versa. By asking for a provision for a man to marry a man or woman to marry a woman you are asking for the law to be redefined. So, yes, that is what’s happening here. Marriage by any definition is not found in our Constitution. Marriage has a been a sacred union between man and woman long before our founding father were even born.

Anti-LGBTQ trolls and Christian extremists are now overrunning this thread, but honestly, if you hold that persons with a public license (sales, law, retail licenses and credentials) are and should be able to discriminate against a class of people at will, you’re parroting the old bigoted and hateful “separate but equal” line of segregationists. If you think LGBTQ people shouldn’t be served because of who we are, you’re advocating for two classes, one with all rights (cis het folk) and one with fewer (us queers). Segregation has always failed and this, too, shall pass. I don’t care a fig about your sophistries that it’s not the “people” that you want christian hatemongerers to object to selling to, it’s the “kind” of marriage. But here’s where that pseudo-logic breaks down. Who is in a same gender marriage? Who’s in a queer marriage? Queer people, THAT’S who! So you’re using marriage as a tool to discriminate against us, even though we won Obergefell and you bigots lost!
Give it up.
You look just like the angry inbred white Southern mobs in pictures from the 1950’s. You lost the Civil War, you lost the battle for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and you’ve lost the battle to keep us from exercising our Constitutional rights like every other American.
Take your energy and redirect it towards feeding the poor, building housing for the homeless, funding healthcare for your brothers, sisters, and siblings.
You know……all that stuff Jesus commanded you to do.

You sound like this: “I can’t be racist, I have a Black friend!” Lol. Pathetic. Just own it…. you’re a hatemongering anti-LGBTQ bigot. Be proud of it, like the guys in red hats and white hoods. Own it. Don’t hide who you are. Come out of your Kristian closet. Lol.

This case is not really analogous to Masterpiece Cakeshop. The tax preparer is not being asked to create anything celebrating same sex marriage, but only to note on the appropriate forms that the couple is legally married. Contrast this with Masterpiece, where the requested service entailed making a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused the job, only because of WHAT was requested, not WHO was making the request.

Sorry, Mr. Bigot, but you’re wrong. My marriage to my wife (partner for 26 years) in the eyes of the post-Obergefell ruling is just as good as yours. I know how much you hate and reject that.
Also…..our marriages are better and happier than yours, lol. Our divorce rate is less than half the rate for Evangelical Christian divorces (the highest rate), and married heterosexual women report marriage satisfaction rates of only 43%, at 5 years, whereas all female married couples have a satisfaction rate of 72%.
You can’t keep us away from our marriage, adoption, and other Constitutional rights. We are American citizens, we have won, and we’ll continue to win despite your hatred.

“I know some gay people” is not an excuse. Moreover, you insist that people who don’t share your very religious views about marriage, but nevertheless also consider marriage sacred, do not get the same play in the public square as you.

As for sacred, when you outlaw divorce, remarriage after divorce for any reason other than adultery, and criminalize adultery, you might have an argument for it.

At least “… gays are a group which he can specifically discriminate against in open commerce thanks to the laws on the books.” supports the conclusion that, for once, you actually familiarized yourself with the law.

That may be so but it’s the states that license marriages. The states may, with the consent of the people, redefine it at anytime as the states are not bound by religious definitions. You don’t have to like it, but it is legal.

Really? So you,re just saying that we’re not entitled to the same rights as citizens, the same protection for our families that a three times married pussy grabber has the next time he wants to marry someone, that our assets are not as valuable as yours, that our children do not require the same legal protection that legally married parents would give them, that our faiths which declare our marriages as sacred as yours are really not as good as yours, that our participation in society is open to question if we don’t share your faith based assumptions…

And that is not the same thing as saying our lives are not as valuable as yours?

Ben, you are ALREADY entitled to the same rights as citizens granted under the Constitution. I think you are confusing basic human rights with the institution of marriage. I’m not arguing against basic rights, I’m arguing against marriage redefinition.

Exactly, Jim. The states, the voters should decide, not a court. Before the court started pretending to be the Legislative branch, we had laws in 33 states that defined what marriage was and was not. They try to lump marriage in with civil rights and when marriage of any kind is not a right. This is wrong. Voters should decide this issue, not the courts.

Art, where have I said anything against religious belief?
Have I said I hated the Christians who want to take my marriage, my job, my life?
Nope.
I just said I’d fight for my rights as an American citizen.

Or are you saying that bigotry is intrinsic to your worship, therefore you view anti-bigotry, pro-LGBTQ civil rights work as inherently hateful because it disrupts your necessary hateful expression?
Hey….. that’s on you.

I’m actually pretty careful to name Evangelicals and Catholics. I know for a FACT there are MANY Christians who support us and support LGBTQ equality, some Presbyterian sects, ELCA, some independent Baptists, Episcopalians, UCC (ONA), non-UMC Methodists, Independent Catholic Churches, MCC, Unitarians. There are MANY who self-describe as Christian who stand with us. At the last STL Pride parade, over 20 churches marched with us.
It’s not just non- Evangelical, non-Roman Catholic faith groups who support us. CAIR and many Islamic Foundation Centers are LGBTQ welcoming Islamic places of community and of worship, and most Reform Synagogues are LGBTQ accepting.
Most Wiccan covens and most Pagan Faith’s are LGBTQ affirming (except some Odinist circles).
Many types of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism/Daoism are also LGBTQ welcoming.
So don’t act like you OWN religion, and OWN probity, and OWN faith because you don’t.
All you own outright is your own prejudice.

It isn’t legal, that’s why a majority of Federal Appellate Courts have ruled that anti-LGBTQ bigotry is illegal under the anti-sex discrimination ban language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Eventually the SCOTUS will have to rule on the merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and either uphold LGBTQ inclusion or strike part or all of the law down, as the conservative majority did to the Voting Rights Act.

YOU should take your own advice.
BOTH the tax preparation device AND the cake shop are retail establishments that are “OPEN TO THE PUBLIC” for the purpose of providing goods and/or services to generate income for the owners.
SCOTUS didn’t rule “in favor of” the baker — They simply remanded the case back to the state courts, saying they had been unduly critical due to Mr. Phillip’s religion. IN NO WAY did they uphold what Phillip’s did, & we should thoroughly expect to see this work it’s way back to SCOTUS in the future.

Of course you are. right wing Christians have repeatedly informed me that marriage is a fundamental building block of society, without which, society will crumble, that religion is a personal right guaranteed by the constitution and sacred as anything can be.
Your marriage has not been redefined, I merely have the same rights that you do. You can still get married as often and badly as you wish, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me, or the sacredness, by which you mean, you have rights that I don’t.
As I already pointed out, it isn’t marriage that is being redefined, it is ME as a gay man, and my friend Sheera, as a gay woman, that has been refined, as no longer your inferior.
and you don’t like that one bit.
maybe you can explain how my marriage affects yours, or prevents you or any other heterosexual from getting married, or affects your beliefs about marriage, or affects your church, or has any affect on your life except to offend you that the figs are now legally equal to you. Because unless you can show that, your claims about redefinition mean nothing

True, but I don’t think that defending the client in terms of the tax return would entail anything that celebrates the marriage. For tax purposes, it is sufficient that the marriage is legal. It is irrelevant whether it is “good”. In Masterpiece, on the other hand, the baker would have had to make something that celebrates the marriage – essentially something that says the marriage is “good”.

NO wedding cakes are created “en mass”– nor are tax returns. The pertinent point is that BOTH are retail businesses open to the public for the purpose of generating income. Any business open to the public — that is to say, NOT a private/”members only” club — can NOT discriminate against any customer. Businesses are considered artificial people for business & tax purposes, and are separate from any owners/ operators; therefore, they have no religious affiliations of their own, and cannot have the owner’s religion foisted upon them.

Ben, with the court affirming gay marriage, that now has made [real] marriage less special. I’m sorry, but a gay marriage will never equal a marriage. I’m not saying you cannot love your same sex partner. You can love someone and not be married and nobody can stop you from doing that. But you misunderstand what marriage is, as ordained by God. Marriage is between a man and woman. It doesn’t mean, as a human, you’re inferior to anyone else. It just means that marriage is what it is.
Just like the sky is blue or the grass is green and the high court has no right to decide that.

Every tax return is a unique document. Just like every wedding cake is. She would be preparing the tax return for a couple whose lifestyle she does not agree with. Just like Masterpiece would have been doing. If religious people truly have sincerely held beliefs then they need to be defended as such, and those beliefs need to be fleshed out and the believers need to be held accountable to how sincere those beliefs are. Philips betrayed the sincerity of his beliefs because he said he was willing to provide other baked goods to gay people. We can see right through his “sincerely held religious beliefs”. The couple in Masterpiece did not request anything different than any other couple getting married. The couple in IN requested a tax return, just like other couples requested.

Who are you referring to?
Look, you can support LGBTQ equality and not be antichristian. In fact, most allies of our community ARE christian, so you’re really all wrong, and I resent your insinuation that all Christians hate we LGBTQ folks as much as you do. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics oppose our basic human rights, but many Christians do not.

…but how can the people decide if the elected officials we decided to place in a position to decide for us aren’t allowed to decide? You’ve already decided that the people’s decisions are invalid, so what are you even asking for?

You can say what you will from a place of hatred; it suits you. But I”m quite far from poor and farther from benighted, lol.
Some quotes for you:
“Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord!” and
“My greatest command to you is to love one another, as I have loved YOU.”

No, Phillips did not “betray the sincerity of his beliefs”. His beliefs do not say it is wrong to serve same sex couples or gay people. They only say that he should not make anything that celebrates sin. Selling them “other baked goods” does not violate that belief. But making a cake celebrating same sex marriage does. His policy is thus completely consistent with his belief.

That makes no sense. There is nothing about a wedding ceremony that celebrates sin. If he thinks homosexual relations is a sin, then he cannot in good conscience sell other baked goods to a couple who will enjoy them together and then (in the conservative Christian mind) have wild gay sex.

“If she has such strong beliefs about the sinfulness of unions outside of heterosexual marriage, Fivecoate would have to show a history of declining her services to all manner of what she would consider sexual sinners. . ..”
Nope. . . the only tax situation in which “sexual sinfulness” would be clear is a joint return with two spouses of the same gender. This isn’t true of “non-permitted” divorce, fornication, polyamory, etc. — none of those other things can be evidenced from a tax return.

No sexual sin shows up on a tax return. Unless she is a secret pervert and inquires about the ins and outs of her clients, she has no idea what “sin” the folks are up to. She’s just a typical hypocrite. These folks just need to be proud of the fact that they just dislike gay people and stop couching it in some pretend religious belief about the sanctity of “marriage”.

Nope, the Bible allows divorce in certain cases. So a divorced person is not necessarily sinful for a divorce that has occurred. The Bible never allows sexual activity between two people of the same gender.

There is actually nothing in the bible that speaks about gay people in a marriage…at all. The only references to homosexuality have nothing to do with relationships. They have to do with idolatry and temple prostitutes.

Did they request a cake to celebrate their marriage?
Is their marriage a same sex marriage?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then they were requesting a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Logic 101.

I agree, the Bible doesn’t address gay marriage. It just condemns same-gender sexual activity. Your view that the Bible references are just about idolatry and temple prostitutes is an extra-biblical assumption, as neither the relevant verses themselves nor the context indicate that to be the case.

True – they are not easily discernible by the plain language. Little is in the Bible. I mean, I bet you think rich folks can get into heaven but the plain language of Jesus himself says otherwise. Unless…you look at context. Context might indicate otherwise. As it does with the verses related to same-sex activities.

He was extremely clear, you’re right. But a tax preparer can prepare a tax return without knowing a particular person is divorced, and thus the preparer is not validating that person’s divorce. S/he cannot do the same for a joint return with two men/two women.

Well, the context for rich people sometimes getting into heaven is right there . . . Jesus says it’s hard for them to get into heaven, then the very next thing he says is that “all things are possible with God.” Could you point me to the context that the biblical passages concerning same-sex activity is speaking to idolatry and temple prostitutes? I’m open to having my mind changed if you can make the case biblically.

Nobody tried to sue the manager of the Red Hen in Lexington for refusing to serve Sarah Sanders and her party, for it’s perfectly legal there to discriminate in the basis of political affiliation. Just a couple of hours to the east in DC, however, it isn’t.

Didn’t say there’s anything that’s not “fine” to point out but by now it’s obvious what the goal is.

It was obvious several years back when Christians in several states were trying to reduce the divorce rate by introducing “covenant marriage.” I do not remember even ONE non-religious voice applauding any “consistency” from us on this issue. All I remember was slander about Christians wanting to “drag women back into the dark ages” and other such foolishness.

One takes the slander and accusation of non-believers with a grain of salt as Jesus assured us that those who try to follow Him would be as hated as He was. If you guys were telling us how great we were, THEN it would be time to worry.

By the way, it is not just non-believers who criticize efforts to impose religious rules on society in general. Most Christians who are not fundamentalist and who do not crave theocracy see the danger in doing so. We don’t, after all, want a Saudia Arabian style society.

They are not completely different — that is your ignorance of “covenant marriage” talking. It was never proposed to be involuntary — people were to be given an option to agree to it at the time of their marriage.

Fine – I agree – I am not familiar with the covenant marriage. Not sure why you would bring it up then since it has nothing to do with this discussion. That’s what happens when an id*ot inserts him/herself (??) into the conversation.

I seriously doubt that it will, either. Kennedy deliberately left his seat on the SCOTUS to a justice that he counted on to help safeguard religious liberty while he retired with his patron saint of gayness halo intact.

“But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.“

In short, it was a kangaroo adjudication, and was so besmirched there was nothing for the state courts to consider.

Not only does the writer of the page you linked to do the same thing that you did — claim that some of the biblical passages are actually talking about temple rituals, etc., without actually giving any biblical support for such an idea — it is also internally inconsistent.

For example, in one paragraph, it says: “Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.”

In the VERY NEXT paragraph when talking about a passage in 1 Corinthians, it says: “Paul was writing before the existence of a homosexual orientation was known.” Which one was it? Is Paul saying that heterosexual acts are “unnatural” for homosexuals, or is he unaware of orientation? It can’t be both.

You’re being far more generous than I am. I don’t allow posters like Etranger to cite a website and then run away. I expect them to actually present and defend what they supposedly find so “clear and convincing.”

It seemed to me that he was genuinely shocked that the case arose in the first place, which is not surprising since justices quickly become isolated from reality living in the rarefied atmosphere of Washington, DC, and being treated like quasi-royalty.

You said “clear evidence.” So, show us what’s so clear about this evidence. Anybody can throw out some third-rate website. I expect you to know and understand exactly what you’re advocating here and be prepared to have it examined and debunked openly.

“Every one of you” includes every non-believer I’ve ever seen post on these threads. Also every Christianity-hater who opposed “covenant marriage” that affected them not at all.

Whatever you believe in, it isn’t biblical Christianity. No follower of Christ would ever demand that a brother or sister participate in ANYTHING that would violate his/her conscience, because we remember Christ’s warning about what can happen to those who cause one of His little ones to sin.

I for one would get out my trusty piping bag and decorate my own wedding cake before I’d insist on anyone who had a problem with my marriage being in on the event.

“right wing Christians have repeatedly informed me that marriage is a fundamental building block of society, without which, society will crumble”.

That’s actually the position of the pagan Romans from republic through empire.

You won’t like what they based that on.

“I merely have the same rights that you do.”

And you did before Obergefell v. Hodges. You could marry any woman of your choosing who was not married, not your sister or your mother, and not under the age of consent.

“As I already pointed out, it isn’t marriage that is being redefined”.

Of course it was, or you could have married as you wished before Obergefell v. Hodges.

“maybe you can explain how my marriage affects.”

Society?

That’s the issue, not whether it “prevents you or any other heterosexual from getting married, or affects your beliefs about marriage, or affects your church, or has any affect on your life except to offend you that the figs are now legally equal to you.”

And that is what you don’t want to talk about, that we’re talking about a society, not a gang of Libertarians and Libertines running over the hill in pantyhose holding hands.

What we’re talking about is the fundamental right of people to build the society in which they want to live.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

And that’s the right you want to throw in the mud and jump up and down on.

Stop with the asshattery. Don’t drop that inane “Hate the sin, not the sinner” gaslighting. We are not sin, or sinful, merely for existing and loving who we do. Don’t you have some murderers or something to chase after, or is persecuting LGBTQ “your jam”, lol?

Btw-why is it that 98% of all pedophiles are Roman Catholic and Evangelical/Southern Baptist?
Can you share any tips on how to protect our kids from child-raping prelates and pastors?

It makes no difference what excuse he makes for the act of discrimination here. He refused to sell goods and services normally done in open commerce because he did not want to treat gays like any other customers. With the most basic level of civility demanded by businesses open to the general public.

If his beliefs were so overwhelming that he could not do that, tough luck. He should have chosen a form of doing business which would not subject him with the horrors of associating with people he sought religious excuses to hate.

Nobody has to give a crap what his beliefs were because one’s beliefs are not a pretext to harm others. Discrimination in open commerce is a recognized harm.

If the sinfulness of customers is a problem for a vendor of goods and services in open commerce, then don’t do business in open commerce. Doing business with the general public entails an obligation to do business with all customers regardless of what class of individual they are or personal feelings concerning such classes.

Being a raging bigot is no excuse here despite what the Bible thumper crowd seems to think.

Nothing infantile about correcting your obvious error. There is nothing related to religious freedom being bandied about by the anti-gay crowd here. It is all about seeking special legal privilege to attack others.

You’re going to be mightily disappointed in the 1st Amendment jurisprudence of the near future, Tater. If a vote by the UMC which affects you not at all can induce this kind of hysteria in you, I can’t wait to see what kind of seizures the SCOTUS will elicit.

Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance and inability to comprehend how the law applies to businesses. Read SCOTUS’ ruling — though I KNOW you won’t– and you’ll find it says EXACTLY what I said. You also needed to study business law a great deal more.

Has he ever made a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple that had sex before marriage? Unless he’s having EVERY wedding cake customer full out a detailed questionnaire as to their behavior, he most assuredly WAS putting one “sin” above another — something the bible doesn’t allow for since it claims all sins are equal. Philip’s discriminated. Period. He should be held accountable under the law.

Phillips ‘ “beliefs” are irrelevant. The business is an artificial person under the law and, as such, has no religious beliefs of its own. Besides, “religious beliefs” have no bearing on the conduct of business — unless you’re discussing churches, which actually ARE businesses, and should be taxed as such.

If he “created” gay rights jurisprudence, then you have just conceded in your ignorance that gay rights jurisprudence is illegitimate on its face. Judges in their proper capacity do not create anything. The people create law.

Kennedy may have been willing to “create” a right out of his backside so his friends wouldn’t be “lonely” (🤣) but he never met a 1st Amendment claim he didn’t like. And there is a reason why he ducked out at this particular time — but not without first going to bat for Kavanaugh.

I find it funny that you talk about who is or isn’t likely to “punt” when you can’t even read a SCOTUS opinion intelligently.

“The business is an artificial person under the law and, as such, has no religious beliefs of its own.” The SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case rejected that claim outright. The only question is how closely-held the business must be in order to exercise a right to religious freedom.

Ever since Paul counseled the Corinthian Christians about meat offered to idols, Christians have assumed the best of everyone wherever possible. There is no way, however, to assume the best about a same-sex marriage. It can not be right under any circumstances.

Thank you for demonstrating all of my points exactly — you’re special, your “faith” is special. (But is it a “real” faith)? I’m just a fig who shouldn’t presume to think that I am as Good As You? Get it? G-A-Y!!!!!

Let’s take apart what you said. What fun!

“Ben, with the court affirming gay marriage, that now has made [real] marriage less special.” I’ve been married for 11 years legally. Are you telling me that for 11 years, your marriage was less special and less valuable? Does your wife know that you feel that way? With my ability to marry and protect my family, love, children and assets somehow makes your marriage less special, then your marriage with nothing special to begin with. Which it was not. It was a marriage, same as anyone else’s. My marriage is a real marriage. It’s a matter of complete indifference to me that you don’t like it.

“I’m sorry” no, you’re not sorry.

“but a gay marriage will never equal a marriage” That’s your opinion, and it isn’t true, not legally, and increasingly, not religiously, socially, morally, or culturally either. I’m not interested in equaling your marriage, nor in your opinion that it isn’t equal to yours. The phrase is absolutely meaning less, except as a means for you to say “I’m better than you.” No, you’re not.

“I’m not saying you cannot love your same sex partner”. That is so damned white of you. So big! so condescending! You’ll give me permission to love someone, but I had better not think I am as Good As You. I’ve have known a number of couples that have been together longer than all three of trumps marriages, all four of Rush Limbaugh’s marriages, all three of Newties fornicating and adulterous marriages, all eight of Mickey Rooney’s marriages or all nine of Liz Taylor’s marriages.

“You can love someone and not be married and nobody can stop you from doing that.” Again, so generous of you to grant me that little bit of humanity. I’m impressed!

“But you misunderstand what marriage is, as ordained by God.” No, I understand exactly what it is: a lifetime commitment to another person, made in front of family, friends, and community, Solemnized in our case to bya minister, and authorized and regulated by the state as a legal contract which entails a number of obligations, rights, responsibilities, and benefits. It establishes next of kinship, as well providing legal protections to our children. I think it is you that doesn’t understand what marriage is. In your opinion, it is ordained by God, or more accurately, ordained by your particular and peculiar version of God in your particular and peculiar version of your religion. There Are plenty about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, ministers, priests, and rabbis, And entire denominations that believe that my marriage is every bit as sacred and as ordained by God as yours.

“Marriage is between a man and woman.” Again, in your opinion, but not according to the laws of a good portion of the west, as affirmed their governments, courts, people, and legislatures. But in any case, in some countries it’s between a man and as many women as he can support, between a man and a woman, followed by a divorce and marriage to another woman, followed by a divorce and marriage to another woman, as often and badly as they wish. And perhaps his mistresses and his boyfriend as well. Or hers.

“It doesn’t mean, as a human, you’re inferior to anyone else”. No but you’re trying to make me inferior to anyone else, especially you.

“It just means that marriage is what it is.” According to your beliefs and your religion.

“Just like the sky is blue or the grass is green and the high court has no right to decide that.” They did, and it’s the law of the land. You might be able to change that, but until you do, it’s the law of the land. You just don’t like it, because it makes a f*g like me your equal and that is what you really object to.

But I do want to thank you for demonstrating what this is really about and in no uncertain terms. Not all bigotry is hate. So much of it is what you haveclearly stated: the unwavering belief in your completely imaginary superiority. That you, as a heterosexual, a human being, an allegedly moral person, and completely a member of a certain class of so called Christian…

that somehow, you are more superior, more deserving, more special, then the objects of your disaffections.

There you go, pretending the Supreme Court has far less power than reality has suggested for over 200+ years. A nonsense argument bandied about by conservatives as a way to avoid recognition of civil liberties.

The usual collateral arguments made because there is no good faith meritorious legal argument to be made. There is no exercise of religious freedom which entails a privilege to attack others in the name of their faith. It must be tough to keep all your canned excuses and screeds straight.

But then again trying to polish the turd of segregationism for the modern era takes some real creatively spurious arguments.

“The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78.

You will only be a believer in judicial activism until they “activate” something you don’t like. That is because you hate the Constitution like all progs do.

“Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law as well as religious organizations. Title II’s definition of public accommodation is limited to “any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests” and so is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws, but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.”

“Various US states have nonuniform laws that provide for nondiscrimination in public accommodations.”

No professional services – attorneys, artists (including performance artists), speech writers, authors, most healthcare providers, and a host of others are not covered.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.”

No LGBT issues.

I will happy to read any SCOTUS decision you believe is relevant, but the above summarizes the law, and your impression of it is erroneous.

The first amendment means that she gets to define her religion to us, not the other way around. Thus she has every right to be a “cafeteria” Christian who believes that gay marriage is wrong while divorce is not. Atheist and Fundamentalist are far from the only two options available. All flavors in between are also options.

FORTUNATELY, your bible has NOTHING to do with the US Constitution OR laws. Even if it DID, if Mr. Phillips isn’t refusing to bake wedding cakes for ALL who “sin”, he’s selectively applying his faith AND discriminating.
In America, we have LAWS that EVERYONE must obey. “Sin” is a religious concept, not a legal one, and not everyone adheres to the same faith.

Seems like Christians can figure out how to function in society. News flash, outside of your church there are people different from you who actually still deserve services and goods and rights. That reality actually doesn’t detract from religious belief…nothing to do with first amendment either…

That’s not my vision, it is in the Bill of Rights. Quite literally the first one.
Your vision of society conversely is downright cartoonish, where the only two options are Atheism and staunch Fundamentalism.

No getting along means co existing. I may not like people who lie – it is against my religious belief- but I will still sell them goods and provide them services. I have prepared countless tax returns for Christians, for instance. By doing so I am not abandoning my religious belief.

Since you are playing the “society” card I will play along. It would be rude to ask a black baker to bake a confederate themed wedding cake for a Klan wedding. It would be rude to ask a Muslim baker to bake a wedding cake that depicts Mohammad as a cartoon pig. It would be rude to ask a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake that is completely covered in swastikas. It would be rude to ask a White liberal baker to bake a gun-themed wedding cake. It would be rude to ask a feminist baker to bake a polygamous wedding cake. And it is rude to ask a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

Decorating cakes — even custom wedding cakes — is the BUSINESS Mr. Phillips is engaged in. It is NOT “participating” in ANYTHING other than the business for which he received his business and health licenses. He would be in NO way, shape or form “participating” in ANY “event”. That’s where you religidiots get it COMPLETELY wrong.

We ALL follow the same laws– at least we’re all supposed to –but we DON’T all follow the same religion. That the point, sweetheart. The LAW applies to everyone. Any person’s religious ideologies do NOT!

It’s called “adding EMPHASIS”, which YOU would have known if anyone had taught YOU how to write. But you did a good job for your first attempt. Keep trying.

Your examples are all unrelated so it is impossible to reply affirmatively to all at once. Not all Christians are against gays marrying (actually most are not against it). Your swastika example is different because it is a specific cake design. Anyone can refuse a cake design. Why would a feminist be against a polygamist wedding per se?! The gun themed cake is a specific design. Why would a liberal be against it per second? For instance I am a liberal but own guns lol. I would find the cake pretty ludicrous but would bake it. Etc etc.
There is nothing rude about asking a baker to bake a wedding cake, if they bake those regularly. The examples you invented are much different.

A small sampling from the internet of how wedding cake artists view their craft:

“Wedding cakes are the highlight of your special day and they should reflect your own style and vision. Let our artists bring that vision to life”

“Let us be a small part of your big day!”

“We look beyond just the cake and focus on creating a work of art that tells the story of two individuals in love.”

“We encourage each couple to bring inspiration found in what moves them, what they treasure, what exemplifies their love. This is the beginning of a beautiful creation … because it’s not just about cake!”

Sounds to me like most artists know quite well that they’re participating and take pride in it.

“It’s called “adding EMPHASIS” No, dear, it’s called shouting, and it’s called ignorant and rude. Emphasis involves intelligent and selective use of words.

Of course the baker can refuse the rainbow design. I know you have fantastical ideas of what gay folks are like but must of us have wedding cakes that look like yours!
Remember, in masterpiece the couple did not even discuss cake design; they never had a chance.

I am glad we finally agree. The issue should always be about artistic expression. No baker should have to create something they don’t like.

You don’t get to decide what decent means. It is the opposite of you. The Constitution guarantees Americans their God-given rights, which cannot be abrogated by any lefty tribunal. So please stuff your self-righteous tyranny in your special place. Your perverted ideas are the definition of vile.

I do not. And because YOU define reality as “outrageous” doesn’t make it so. Take your misplaced indignation and apply it where it may do some good – like saving a child’s life as the racist Planned Parenthood is killing her after she is born in their abattoir.

You wouldn’t recognize an intelligent person if he kissed you on the cheek.
Nor do you even have any idea what religion is. You are simply pitiable.

“Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
1 Romans 1:21

Well…let’s break that down. Yes, divorce can be ascertained from a tax return. But the default position of a good Christian with sincerely held religious beliefs is that divorce is wrong. So she should not do the tax return. The exception to the general rule is that divorce is okay in cases of adultery. So if she decides it is okay to do a divorced person’s return (because it is an “okay” divorce in her system of sincerely held religious beliefs), she accepts that adultery occurred. That means that she is doing the tax return of a probable adulterer. If she did the returns for both divorced parties from the couple, she has a 100% chance of participating in adultery. (Participation is the new thing for the discriminatory religious folks…somehow making a cake, providing flowers, doing tax returns or renting out a reception hall is participation in a marriage event… I never knew when I was a waiter at Marriott working banquets that I was participating in so many weddings and bar mitzvahs and family unions!!)

Someone so deranged by their petty prejudice that they cannot even bother to act in the barest level of civility our society demands of dealing with others.

Someone so lacking in courage of their beliefs that they seek to avoid all personal responsibility for what they do to others. So you seek legal excuses and pretend religious belief absolves you of criticism here.

The Constitution does not allow you to harm others in the name of your faith. You do not seek religious freedom. You seek special privilege as a Christian over others. You hate freedom, rule of law and basic human decency.

Jack Phillips did not deny service “based on personal animus against the class of the customers.” He denied service only because the requested service entailed making a cake celebrating same sex marriage.
The tax preparer on the other hand was not being asked to make anything celebrating same sex marriage. She was only being asked to make a legal document – not a celebratory document.

Yes he did. He refused to treat a gay couple as he would any other customer, because they were gay. The tax preparer refused to treat the gay couple like any other customer because they were gay.

Your nonsense about “celebration” here is immaterial. It is merely a lame excuse for conduct which is nothing more than “I don’t serve gays”. More importantly the entire purpose of such actions are to declare the customer a social inferior, less than the person the vendor is. The intent is entirely discriminatory and based on bigoted disregard for others.

They refused to provide the “wares” of their business which were advertised as available to the general public because of the class of customer asking for them. That is as textbook a definition of discrimination as one gets.

If the vendor was so deranged by their prejudice and religious belief that they could not even bother to act with the bare minimum level of civility required by society and law, then they should not do business to the general public. There are ways to conduct business where one can be so selective and exclusive.

All your bullcrap about “sins” of the customers and religious compulsion are merely looking for excuses for actions which are objectively and legally indistinguishable from those by people when Jim Crow was in effect.

You are lying here. There was nothing to indicate they ever treated straight couples in such a fashion. The fact the customers were gay were the ONLY factors in the decision.

They wanted to make a distinction as to which customers may receive the goods and services advertised as available to the general public. To treat the gay couples as social inferiors in a malicious fashion.

The entire purpose of these actions are to segregate gays from open commerce. Jim Crow 2.0 in its most obvious sense.

I’m pretty sure that he would not make a cake that celebrated “sex before marriage”. But if a couple were transitioning from a “sinful” relationship (sex before marriage) to a “righteous” relationship (marriage), I see no reason why he would not make a cake celebrating the marriage.

Intent is a critical factor. It is illegal in Colorado to deny service to a gay person if the denial is based on the fact that he is gay. But it is not illegal if the denial of service is based on some other factor.

I have one for you:
Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.
Acts 3:19
Or, let God’s vengeance be shown against the ungodly. Jesus loves, but He also commands “Go, and SIN NO MORE.” Wake up! Life is short and you will rue your persecution of decency in the end.

Lol, your hatred and violence is oozing out all over. Do you think I feel insulted by such obvious self-serving vitriol? Or do you think anyone reading cannot see what you are? Grow up. Americans have God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution. If you don’t like that, go to China where the government tells everyone how they must live. If you perverts truly loved humanity, you wouldn’t need to try to force others to associate with you.

For a person whose very handle identifies them as a terrible, “deplorable” person, you seem awfully gunshy about actually following through on it. One would expect you to revel in such responses and not care so much about the opinions of others. You are truly spineless.

I am not the one advocating harming others. You are apparently afraid of people calling out your petty malicious actions.

“If you perverts truly loved humanity, you wouldn’t need to try to force others to associate with you.”

Its funny. One one hand, Bible thumping bigots are responding to me are claiming their goal is not segregation and discrimination. Then you finally work up the nerve to prove my point and kill their arguments. Your arguments.

“Sin” or what any one person perceives as “sin” is irrelevant. The couple wanted to BUY a wedding cake, which is what Mr. Phillips is in the BUSINESS of making and SELLING.
If the “good Christians” actually read their bibles, they’d discover that they’re sinning as well by judging other people by their “sins”. And people wonder why I left those charlatans in the muck in which they insist upon wallowing.

And the denial of those services most assuredly WAS because the couple was gay.

Of course, the UP side is, now they’ve opened the door for anti-theists to legally deny their services to the hateful “Christian” they’d otherwise have to put up with– and they won’t be able to legally say a thing about it.

You mean like the verbal assault, you began the discussion with? You are truly a spineless hypocrite.

Criticizing an uncivil and hateful person is not verbal assault. It is just being honest. I am not the one advocating treating entire classes of people as less than human as you do. So have fun trying to portray me as being hateful.

You apparently have no problem dishing out hateful nonsense to others, but don’t want to be called out on it. Afraid of being criticized for your actions. Oh well.

I love how you completely murdered the arguments of your fellow Bible thumping bigots. All by saying in public what was meant to be private among you guys. That you want nothing more than segregation.

Those are all pretty much examples of hate speech, and could rightfully be rejected using the neutral standard “no hate speech.”

There is nothing wrong with a black baker making a cake for the marriage of two white people. Likewise, a vegan baker would make a dessert for a barbeque (using his vegan recipes if his product is “vegan cakes”) or a jewish baker would make a cake for a muslim wedding.

Its mostly christians who think the planet should humor their bigotry.

But a gay couple is not filing a joint return because they are having sex. They are filing a joint return because the civil, secular government says they are married.

There is not one word in the bible that prohibits a gay marriage. If anything, the bible prohibits gay sex. The tax preparer simply has no way of knowing whether any married couple is having sex. That isn’t the sort of thing one discusses with one’s accountant.

I can see what you mean. Truth be told, I don’t think the tax accountant has a strong case here, since she is basically just acting as an extension of the government by helping people file taxes. I think artists (photographers, bakers, musicians) have more of a leg to stand on when it comes to these religious freedom situations.

Already went over that with someone else. Divorce is permitted in some cases in the Bible. Homosexual activity (generally assumed to be occurring in virtually every same-sex marriage) is never permitted.

You’re being disingenuous — sex is assumed to be the norm for marriage.
The Bible speaks highly of marriage in the Bible — from the first part of Genesis through to the New Testament letters, marriage is held to be a heterosexual institution. Even if you want to try to make the case that just because people are married doesn’t mean they’re “being intimate,” there is still a very strong case to be made the Bible only endorses heterosexual marriage.

Yep, could be. But you’d have no way of knowing who’s who. Besides, the circumstances surrounding “acceptable” divorce are far less clear in the Bible than prohibitions of same-sex activity. This fact is reflected in church doctrinal views, which have long made allowances for divorce in some cases, but have never, until well after the sexual revolution, allowed same-sex marriage.

“On June 30, 2014, Associate Justice Samuel Alito delivered the judgment of the court. Four justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) joined him to strike down the HHS mandate, as applied to closely held corporations with religious objections, and to prevent the plaintiffs from being compelled to provide contraception under their healthcare plans. The ruling was reached on statutory grounds, citing the RFRA, because the mandate was not the “least restrictive” method of implementing the government’s interest. The ruling did not address Hobby Lobby’s claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

You should at least avail yourself of de minimus resources before engaging in blather.

“‘but a gay marriage will never equal a marriage’ That’s your opinion, and it isn’t true, not legally, and increasingly, not religiously, socially, morally, or culturally either.”

He is stating that from his perspective, and in agreement with Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians you are not in a marriage.

And that is whether you like it or do not. He has that right.

“’It doesn’t mean, as a human, you’re inferior to anyone else’. No but you’re trying to make me inferior to anyone else, especially you.”

No, you’re making yourself appear inferior to him because your angry bitterness, your hatred of his beliefs, and your pugnacious attitude are inconsistent with an adult who can carry on a conversation with another adult.

“’It just means that marriage is what it is.’ According to your beliefs and your religion.”

Well, Big Duh!

“that somehow, you are more superior, more deserving, more special, then the objects of your disaffections.”

But he said none of that. All of it, from A to B, comes from you and your apparent sense of inadequacy which does not, and apparently cannot, tolerate disagreement.

“The 1844 General Conference voted to suspend Bishop Andrew from exercising his episcopal office until he gave up the slaves. Southern delegates to the conference disputed the authority of a General Conference to discipline bishops. The cultural differences that had divided the nation during the mid-19th century were also dividing the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 1844 dispute led Methodists in the South to break off and form a separate denomination, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MEC,S).”

The Baptist situation is much more complex, but Baptist ministers preached against abuse of slaves citing Paul’s advice to both slaveowners and slaves. As with the Methodists, the cultural differences between the northern and southern congregations created constant conflict between the two geographical sections.

I simply pointed out the blatant hipocricy all you religious folks engage in. IF he were TRULY “living his faith” he would treat ALL sins equally as his alleged “God” does. Mr. Phillips, like most “Christians”, is very selective about which “sins” he recognizes and chooses to enforce.

Wrong. MOST accurately, he chose which PART of his faith he wants to abide by, ignoring all the rest.
Obviously, there are nuances to this case and the law you choose to ignore. Rest assured, this will work it’s way back to SCOTUS, as was intended.

And that’s the way it should be. Mature adults are generally able to navigate these situations between each other with little need for government to step in and tell them whom they must play with and how.

Actually I have only done that in response to you doing the same. I don’t mind discussing things in a civil manner, but if I lock horns with someone of your ilk I will often respond in kind. You get what you give.

I agree that a gay person should be able to buy a normal wedding cake and then swap out the figurines once they get home. That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise. The trouble with the left is that they don’t like to compromise, so we wind up in this “all or nothing” paradigm.

I like civil discussions as well and, like you, respond in kind when someone takes it to another level. I don’t sit there and complain that I got insulted if I were the first to do it though, like you did (read up thread and see where you constantly called me dumb…”insults are not arguments” right?)

That is patently false. In the Masterpiece case they couldn’t even get a cake. Forget figurines! But yeah, no gay person is going to sue over not get a cake with a figurine on it…it is not “all or nothing” it is “just get the same something others are getting”.

Wrong again. The hypocrisy arises when he picks and chooses which “sins” from his bible/religion he’s going to recognize in order to discriminate against others. It takes no chutzpah at all to recognize that, but it DOES take intelligence and the ability to reason — something most (but not all) religious folks I’ve met are incapable of. Those with the intelligence and ability to reason also call out Mr. Phillips and his supporters for their hypocrisy.

“Sin” is a man-made construct, used by greedy, power-hungry men to control the masses. It works really well with peasants and the uneducated, and is a great acronym:
Self Imposed Nonsense.
But that’s all it is.

That’s not how I understand it, but it would indeed be odd. A gay person could by buying a cake for the wedding of a straight relative. Not sure how he’d even know that it was for a gay wedding unless they told him or asked for it to be decorated in a manner that would make it obvious.

Reading through the first one deployed between the two of us was your “cookoo” to which I replied that you are not the brightest bulb in the box and it escalated from there. Nevertheless we appear to have moved past that point which is fine with me. Carry on.

Oh I misunderstood. I figured you meant the hay couple would order a normal wedding cake (ie one that is not rainbow colored) and just get the figurines themselves. That is a compromise. Otherwise we are back to discrimination and criticizing gays for standing up to it.

The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

Sin in most beliefs is a deity-made “construct”.

Obviously you’ve sucked on the lemon used by greedy power-hungry men to sell pornography, self-gratification, and short-term pleasure to the masses. It’s working really well with the self-appointed “progressive” classes.

The people are irrelevant. Jack Phillips will deny service to anyone if the requested service entails making a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Anyone. He’s not “judging” the people. He’s “judging” the message.

More baseless claims. You don’t have one bit of proof that he would make a cake celebrating SSM, for anyone. You don’t have one bit of proof that he “wanted to make a distinction as to which customers may receive the goods and services advertised.” You don’t have one bit of proof that “the entire purpose of these actions are to segregate gays from open commerce”. Those are nothing but witch-hunter type charges.

No, you just felt the need to change the facts to suit a false narrative. Especially in your choice of words here.

What you call “refusing to make a cake celebrating SSM” is better known as just refusing to serve a customer because they were gay. Rephrasing the act did not change its nature.

“You don’t have one bit of proof that “the entire purpose of these actions are to segregate gays from open commerce”

He has a business which is engaged in open commerce. He refused to serve customers because they were gay. he proof is in the facts itself. You seem to think that calling it something else denies what happened. Your entire spiel here is dishonest garbage. On its face, Philips acted no differently than any vendor had during Jim Crow. He just didn’t want to treat gays like any other customer. He wanted a legal right to treat them like social inferiors. Just like any other bigot who seeks legal permission to discriminate.

He even claimed it was because they were gay. That his religious beliefs compelled him not to serve gay people like any other customers for his show.

Your need to pretend rephrasing what the acts were belies how dishonest the claims were. What you call “celebrating SSM” is objectively referred to as simply refusing to provide goods and services normally sold in the business based on the class of customer requesting it.

On its face it is no different than any other discrimination in open commerce based on the class of customer.

A Catholic school in Kansas denied entry to a child with same-sex parents. Before you conservatives get your panties in a bunch, the school was within its legal rights. But it appears the ‘sins’ of the parents are passed to the child.

At least you admit that “Christians” pick and choose what “sins” they want to recognize.

You’ll have to prove there is a deity — and specifically YOUR deity — before you can maintain that it defined “sin”.

As to your last paragraph, you’re projecting. I have nothing to do with those things, but it’s quite common for “Christians” to blame others for “sins” they themselves commit. The high profile examples (Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, & others) are just the tip of the iceberg, and every community has their own examples of the corruption within religion.

BTW — YOUR attitude is what has driven me and millions of others out of churches and away from religion forever. You don’t know anything about me, yet try to enumerate MY “sins”. ROFLMAO It’s hilarious that you think yourself “righteous” enough to judge anyone. Keep it up! You continue to make our case.

The government can’t define religion. It is a personal right. The government might refuse tax-exempt status or the courts can determine whether religious practices (actions) conform to the law. From where does anarchy arise?

If people can choose all of the laws they can follow, it sounds like anarchy. The folks on this site commenting on from the pro-discrimination side want every individual to be able to take their personal religious view and use it as a justification to not follow laws. You will have an infinite number of possibilities of how that manifests itself.

You’re confusing one person’s “beliefs” with facts. Just because one person “believes” something is “a sin” doesn’t mean everyone does– even within the same faith community. While each is entitled under the 1st Amendment to “believe” whatever they wish, that doesn’t entitle them to decide for other people what constitutes “sin”. As I stated before, to prove your “deity’s” various “sins”, you must first prove your deity exists and/or has any authority over all humanity. While YOU may “believe” that of your deity, there is no proof of your, or any other, deity. I am, however, always open to any deity showing up in person and proving itself; however, there has never been any such demonstration. I do not accept self-appointed mouthpieces for any deities.
“Beliefs” are simply opinions about religious ideologies — and you know what they say about opinions.

“Just because one person “believes” something is ‘a sin’ doesn’t mean everyone does– even within the same faith community.”

It matters not a fig.

“While each is entitled under the 1st Amendment to ‘believe’ whatever they wish, that doesn’t entitle them to decide for other people what constitutes ‘sin’.”

As far as determining whether person A likes, provides professional services to, respects, or otherwise person B who is – in A’s opinion – sinning, they are certainly entitled.

If believe extramarital sex is immoral, and I find that Bennie visits a brothel every time he’s in Nevada, I can cease placing business with him, not go to dinner with him, avoid him at the club, or any other legal action I deem appropriate.

“As I stated before, to prove your ‘deity’s’ various ‘sins’, you must first prove your deity exists and/or has any authority over all humanity.”

And, as I stated before, I have no obligation to prove a thing to you. I am entitled to believe in deity, you’re entitled not to believe in a deity.

“’Beliefs’ are simply opinions about religious ideologies — and you know what they say about opinions.”

Mr. Phillips’ Christian faith ALSO says that premarital sex, divorce & remarriage after are sins as well. If he has ever sold a cake to anyone who has engaged in those, he’s not being true to his faith and is choosing to “pick & choose” which “sins” he will and won’t recognize, as you’ve already admitted.

You seem to have a problem differentiating “law” from “belief”. The two are quite different, and not remotely similar to each other. I’m sorry you’re so uneducable, but it’s not surprising given your indoctrination.

“If he has ever sold a cake to anyone who has engaged in those, he’s not being true to his faith and is choosing to ‘pick & choose’ which ‘sins’ he will and won’t recognize, as you’ve already admitted.”

You really seem to be detached completely from the facts of the case.

Mr. Phillips did NOT say he would not bake cakes for people engaged in “sin”.

What he would not do is bake a cake celebrating a same sex marriage.

He previously refused to bake cakes for Halloween, which he considered a pagan celebration.

If he believed divorce is a sin, I assume that meant he would not bake a cake to celebrate a divorce.

So, he did NOT refuse to serve gay people. In fact he had served this very couple before, and hired gay people>

Get your facts sorted out ASAP.

“You seem to have a problem differentiating ‘law’ from ‘belief’.”

You seem to have a problem differentiating facts from feelings. The two are quite different, and in this case not remotely similar to each other.

Wrong again. He was more than happy to sell items that his store carries to gay people. He didn’t sell gay wedding cakes to anybody, regardless of their sexual orientation. Had they sent in their straight parents to purchase a gay wedding cake, they would have been denied as well because that isn’t an item that his bakery carries.

Actually, I DO know, having been a Christian in the past and having spent 50 years reading and researching the bible, its origins, the culture and customs of the area and times, and more related things than you can imagine.

The FACT that he makes and sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples proves he refused to do the same for the gay couple. Having designed and sold wedding cakes myself, I can authoritatively state that the ONLY thing he was “participating in” was the BUSINESS of baking and decorating wedding cakes.

My “feelings” have nothing to do with the law and the facts. Mr. Phillips and his supporters — like you — are the ones allowing your “feelings” based on your religion to skew your understanding (or lack) of the law.

“Actually, I DO know, having been a Christian in the past and having spent 50 years reading and researching the bible, its origins, the culture and customs of the area and times, and more related things than you can imagine.”

So you have an opinion.

So does he.

“The FACT that he makes and sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples proves he refused to do the same for the gay couple.”

Yes, he used to design and sell wedding cakes. He no longer does so for anyone.

He refused to bake a rainbow same sex wedding cake. He also refused to put a dildo on a transgender, or bake a Halloween.

“Having designed and sold wedding cakes myself, I can authoritatively state that the ONLY thing he was “participating in” was the BUSINESS of baking and decorating wedding cakes.”

Again, you have an opinion.

How you would you feel if I suggested that nude dancing was an exercise of free speech under the First Amendment?

“My ‘feelings’ have nothing to do with the law and the facts.”

That’s what I’ve been saying. In fact, I don’t even think they’ve met each other.

“Mr. Phillips and his supporters — like you — are the ones allowing your ‘feelings’ based on your religion to skew your understanding (or lack) of the law.”

Mr. Phillips walked away unconvicted.

That seems to speak to my understand of the law and your total lack of it.

Using a crap analogy of plain old discrimination with nonsense about a patently outrageous request. The problem with garbage analogy is the person employing it spends more time defending the analogy than making a relevant argument. 🙂

BTW that was already tried. The baker made the cake and let the person write their own message in icing. The customer lost the case.

Your claim that refusing to make a cake celebrating SSM is the same as “refusing to serve a customer because they were gay” is as illogical as claiming that refusing to make a cake celebrating white supremacy is the same as refusing to serve a customer because they were white.

Yet you made up a completely phony claim about how he has treated straight couples. Go figure.

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece’s owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.

Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the timehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Actually that is exactly what it was. The baker refused to provide a good/service he normally provided customers in the ordinary course of his business preciesly because they are gay.

Calling the act, “refusing to celebrate a SSM” doesn’t change the act or its nature. It is also an admission of the bigoted intent of the vendor and yourself. That somehow they were social inferiors who were not entitled to the same level of civility as any other customer, because they were gay. You are under the mistaken impression that rephrasing what it was means a damn thing.

There was a request, it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple. That’s all it was. Straight up discrimination based on personal bigotry. No different in any way from Jim Crow level refusal of service in open commerce 50 years ago.

You are a liar. Your analogy is garbage.

There was nothing about the cake which “celebrated” anything other than the mere presence of the customer. You are trying to pretend there was anything unique or special about the request. It wasn’t. As stated before, it was only because the customers were gay.

No, the man refused to make the cake because it was for a gay wedding. If the gay couple were buying a wedding cake for a straight friend’s wedding it would have been fine. If they’d sent a straight couple in there to buy a cake for a gay wedding, he wouldn’t have sold it to them either. The analogy with regards to forcing a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake covered in swastikas is spot on, which is why it has you so worked up into a tizzy. The Christian baker finds the gay wedding cake to be offensive, just as the Jewish baker finds the swastika cake to be offensive. Even if the swastika cake was for an Indian wedding where the symbol is viewed as a peace sign or what have you, it would still be understandable if the Jewish baker refused to bake it on the grounds of finding it offensive.

It was a normal wedding cake, the customers happened to be gay. It was all about the class of people it was for, not the cake. You proved my point. There was nothing about the request itself which was somehow unreasonable or objectionable. You killed your own argument that used the analogy.

“The analogy with regards to forcing a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake covered in swastikas is spot on”

No, Liar. Because the cake involved was no different from any other he normally sold. Only the type of customer being sold to. You made that clear already.

All you are doing is trying to find a new spin on the same old discrimination. In its most honest terms, ones even you have admitted to here, the baker didn’t want to sell his wedding cakes to a gay couple, because they were gay. He didn’t want to treat them like any other customer making the same request. He was too much of a raging bigot to act with the most basic level of civility his business demanded.

This is not an issue of religious belief or “being forced” or “celebrating an act”. There was no moral act or stand for conscience. This was just a malicious scumbag using the opportunity to act badly to others with impunity.

Why are you relying on the wording of a Wikipedia article? Here are the actual and undisputed facts of the case, as stated exactly in the Colorado Court of Appeals document. “In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.”https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

It does not say that he denied them service because they were gay. You made that up.

“There was a request, it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.”

I see you are doubling down on your baseless allegations. There is not one bit of proof that “it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.”

“There was nothing about the cake which “celebrated” anything other than the mere presence of the customer.”

Did they request a cake to celebrate their marriage?
Is their marriage a same sex marriage?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then the requested service entailed making a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Logic 101.

He wouldn’t make it because of what the requested cake celebrated. Not because they happened to be a same sex couple. Here are the undisputed facts from the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling:
“In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.”
The fact that they were a same sex couple was incidental. What mattered was that the cake was for celebrating same sex marriage. He would not make a cake for anyone – gay or straight – if the cake celebrated same sex marriage. Their sexual orientation was simply not a factor in his decision. The undisputed facts of the case show that it was all about WHAT was being celebrated – not WHO was doing the celebrating.

There is no baseless about it. I even quoted the wikipedia entry on the subject. It was clear from accounts of the matter. Nothing about the request was different from any other he had taken other than the fact that a gay couple made the request.

” There is not one bit of proof that “it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.””

Now you are shifting goalposts here. But still wrong. Hostility was inherent in the act. There is no such thing as well intentioned discrimination. It is meant as an act of malice. To demean the customer and treat them as a social inferior. Something you are not allowed to do in open commerce.

More relevant questions dealing with the actual legal issues here.
-Is the baker a party to the wedding? No
-Is it the baker’s business who is using the cake? No as long as they are paid for it
-Is a wedding cake for a straight couple any different than one for a gay one? No
-Were the gay couple treated the same way as any other customer? No
-Did the baker have a duty to treat customers all the same way regardless of what class of people they were? Yes.

Is there a religious freedom issue here? Not at all. Free exercise of religion does not entail a privilege to attack others in the name of their faith.

Therefore:

The baker discriminated against the gay couple and refused to sell a cake he would have made for any other customer.

Wikipedia is far better than your flat out unsubstantiated lying. Other sources could be used. But when Wikipedia is making your claims look foolish, you have really sunken to obvious levels of dishonesty.

” but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.””

Meaning he did not want to treat the gay couple like any other customers. He considered them social inferiors because they were gay. So he refused to sell a cake he would normally sell to anyone else. That does not help your case at all. It is precisely analogous to Jim Crow era restaurants serving black customers, but only at the takeout counter.

So, your excuse for using Wikipedia instead of the official court document is that Wikipedia is better than “lying”. LOL That’s as ridiculous as excusing gluttony on the basis that it’s better than drunkenness!!! You position has gone from the absurd to the laughably absurd.
In any event, even the Wikipedia article does not support your claim of this alleged statement by Phillips where he allegedly said that he denied service ” because they were gay.” The article just uses the word “gay” so many times that it may convince the weak-minded that “gay” was a factor in the decision to deny service. But if swaying the weak-minded is what you call “proof”, then your position is even more pathetic than I thought. If you can’t prove your claim logically using the facts as stated in the official court ruling, then you have no proof. Case closed.

Even the Wikipedia article does not support your claim that “it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.” But its choice of wording may convince the weak-minded, or those too lazy to read the official court documents. But proof requires that you use the undisputed case facts exactly as stated explicitly in the official court ruling. Here it is again for your convenience:
“In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.”
If you can’t prove your claim using the facts as stated in the official court proceedings, then you have no proof. Period.